Translate

Thursday, March 07, 2013

1) I am a medically qualified toxico-pathologist and expert
on effects of toxic substances on the fetus and infant during the developmental
period of life. I am a Past President of the International Society of Doctors
for the Environment, which is a World Health Organisation and United Nations
recognised NGO representing some 30,000 medical doctors around the world. I
have served on UK Government regulatory committees and am currently Professor
of Bioimaging at the University of Ulster.I served as an Expert Witness on fetal
toxicology causation in the case of Castillo vs Dupont in Miami,
Florida.

2) Pre-industrial levels of fluoride in the environment were
very low. There are now many different sources of both therapeutic and
pollutant sources of fluoride. The former can be taken, under informed consent,
for dental health purposes.

3) It is generally accepted that the predominant action of
fluoride on dental enamel is a topical one and that there is little additional
benefit from systemic administration (CDC, 1999).

4) The ‘one dose fits all’ method of administration to whole
populations via the public drinking water supply is known to be deeply flawed.
This particularly applies to the neonatal infant being fed formula milk, which
is reconstituted using fluoridated tap water. In the latter case it is
acknowledged overdosing is occurring. A baby drinking formula made up with fluoridated
tap water at 1 ppm will get 250 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby.

5) Breast milk contains very low levels of fluoride (0.004
ppm, NRC, 2006, p.40), even when the lactating mother has been administered
fluoride. Though the serum level of fluoride increased, the breast milk level
remained very low (Ekstrand, 1981, 1984)). It is my opinion that this is the
result of a specific exclusion process that has evolved to protect the neonate
from exposure to anything other than very low levels of fluoride during
critical windows of development of a number of organs.

6) There is evidence of developmental neurotoxicity from
exposure to fluoride, expressed as reduced IQ distributions in populations,
when compared epidemiologically with populations with lower exposures. There
now have been 36 studies (see the complete listing at
www.FluorideAlert.org/health/brain) that have found a lowered IQ associated
with even modest exposure to fluoride. For example Xiang et al. (2003) found a
threshold for IQ lowering at 1.9 ppm. Ding et al. (2010) have found a lowering
of IQ in the range of 0.3 to 3 ppm. Moreover, they and other researchers, have
reported a correlation between the extent of the IQ lowered and the level of
fluoride exposure as measured in the urine.

7) Recently a team from HarvardUniversity (Choi et al, 2012) reviewed 27 of these IQ studies using a
meta-analysis. They found a remarkable consistency in the results even though
they were derived from four different countries (China, India, Iran and Mexico). Of the 27 studies comparing villages with low levels of
fluoride and with villages with modest to high levels of fluoride (0.88- 11.5
ppm), 26 revealed a lower IQ in the children from the “high” fluoride village.
The mean difference was 7 IQ points, which from a population perspective is
highly significant. Such a shift would reduce the number of geniuses in a large
population by at least 50%, and approximately double the number of mentally
handicapped.

8) The mechanism by which this
IQ lowering could occur is not fully understood. However, direct toxicological
action by fluoride on the developing nervous system is a biologically feasible
likelihood. There have now been well over one hundred animal studies indicating
that fluoride can cross the blood brain barrier and cause changes in the brain
(see appendix 1 in the book “The Case Against Fluoride” by Connett, Beck and
Micklem). Another mechanism is an indirect one, via disturbance of thyroid
hormone metabolism, which should be considered (See chapter 8 of the National
Research Council report Fluoride in
Drinking Water: A Review of EPA’s standards, NRC, 2006, for a comprehensive
review of fluoride’s interactions with the endocrine system). The finding that
even variations in thyroxin levels within the maternal euthyroid (normal) range
can subtly affect the IQ of offspring (Pop et al 1995, 1999) highlights the
very critical role of the hormone in controlling normal neural development. The
prior therapeutic use of F to reduce thyroid hormone levels in cases of
thyrotoxicosis is well documented (Goldemberg, (1926, 1930, 1932); May (1935, 1937);
Orlowski (1932) and Galletti and G. Joyet, (1958)).

9) There is evidence that the incidence of osteosarcoma, a
frequently lethal bone cancer, increased in teenage boys in fluoridated versus
non-fluoridated areas (Hoover et al., 1991); Cohn, 1992). These findings were
greatly strengthened by a case-control study conducted at Harvard by Elise
Bassin (Bassin et al., 2006).Bassin
found that young boys exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th,
7th and 8th years had a 5-7 fold risk of succumbing to
osteosarcoma by the age of 20. At the time that this study was published
Bassin’s thesis adviser, Chester Douglass promised in a letter (Douglass and
Joshipura, 2006) that his larger study would refute her findings. However,
Douglass’s study was finally published (Kim et al., 2011) failed to refute
Bassin’s thesis. In other words we have a high quality – unrefuted - study,
which indicates that fluoridation may actually be killing a few young men each
year.

10) Given the above uncertainties concerning the causation
of harm to human health through mandatory fluoridation of the public drinking
water of whole populations, allied to the very dubious advantage for dental
health of the practice, it is my considered opinion that on the balance of
medical probabilities that there is a strong case for not considering the
fluoridation of public drinking water.This statement is made also in the light of ethical issues concerning a)
the incidence of avoidable dental fluorosis in young people and b) the mass
medication of a whole population without prior informed consent.

11) Statement on
conflicts of interest. I have no commercial interests or research grants,
current or past, concerning the fluoridation of drinking water. I hold no
shares in any companies involved in water fluoridation. I have never received a
fee for speaking on the topic of fluoridation.